3 ms·

It is vastly more cost effective to build electric transmission lines instead of gas pipelines, and crack hydrogen at the point of use. Furthermore, the desert

by ncmncm 4y ago

It is vastly more cost effective to build electric transmission lines instead of gas pipelines, and crack hydrogen at the point of use. Furthermore, the desert is a lousy place to put solar panels. They get hot and dusty, making them inefficient and shortening their life. The best places are floating on water, and sharing pasture and crop land. Spain, Italy, and Greece have plenty of room for such solar. Portugal, too, and former Yugoslavia, Albania and Bulgaria. Nukes will shortly be unable to produce competitive power, and will be mothballed except where taxpayers are forced to subsidize them.

csdvrx 4y ago
> It is vastly more cost effective to build electric transmission lines instead of gas pipelines, and crack hydrogen at the point of use No it's not. You are building in your assumption that I talk about solar panels for electricity generation. I don't. I'm talking about direct aerochemistry, without separate solar panels, to avoid tackling up the conversion rate of solar to electricty on top of the conversion rate of the chemical reaction that would create the hydrocarbons. There is gas in North Africa. This gas can be directly burnt to generate heat. It can also be used to generate electricity. That's short term. In the long term, we'll be able to make similar compounds from energy (sunlight or heat) + CO2 + H2O. Inbetween, there's a window of opportunity for nuclear and solar, but both are extremely polluting due to the metals used: we should avoid getting locked in this bad situation. Also, I think the lack of nuclear accident in Western Europe so far has just been luck. With the dense population, it's a catastrophe waiting to happen. > Furthermore, the desert is a lousy place to put solar panels I don't think you understand, as I don't suggest at all the use of solar panels. Using solar panels to generate energy is nice, but it's at best carbon neutral. I'm talking about the future: being carbon negative: extracting CO2 from the atmosphere and generating a usable from of energy.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  If you are not talking about solar panels, you are not in the conversation. Photovoltaic solar is vastly cheaper than any known photochemical process. It is strongly carbon-negative. The metals involved do not make it a polluter. It is possible that a direct photochemical process cheaper than photovoltaics + electrolysis will be discovered, but none is known today, and photovoltaics cost is still in free fall, a moving target.
  - csdvrx 4y ago
    > If you are not talking about solar panels, you are not in the conversation. (!!!) You are locked in the present, and existing sources of energy that are polluting yet labelled as "green". Think about the future instead! > Photovoltaic solar is vastly cheaper than any known photochemical process. Emphasis on KNOWN. There's lot of research going on. > It is strongly carbon-negative. Unless a process removes CO2 from the atmosphere, a process is not carbon negative. You may say that it reduces the interest in other methods that generate CO2, and therefore, by extension, it's like removing CO2, but it's not the same. > The metals involved do not make it a polluter. https://www.cfact.org/2019/09/15/the-solar-panel-toxic-waste-problem/ https://www.cfact.org/2019/09/15/the-solar-panel-toxic-waste... "Solar panels generate 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than nuclear power plants. They also contain lead, cadmium, and other toxic (even carcinogenic) chemicals that cannot be removed without breaking apart the entire panel. Worse, rainwater can wash many of these toxics out of the fragments of solar modules over time" I think you are blind to the various negatives of solar power. > It is possible that a direct photochemical process cheaper than photovoltaics + electrolysis will be discovered, Exactly my point. Thanks for at least agreeing in the end.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      Efficient photochemical lysis is *possible", but not the way to bet. If it happens, it will enter the mix. There is no reason to think it would involve less use of metals than photovoltaics. Until hydrocarbon burning is a negligible part of energy production, a kWh of solar exactly displaces the equivalent amount of CO2 production. It is for now the most cost-effective way to keep CO2 from entering the atmosphere, much more so than any extractive process could match, and getting cheaper by the day. When we are producing much less CO2, we will need to start collecting and sequestering carbon. Turning it into fuel again, by whatever means, just cycles it back to the atmosphere when the fuel is burned. Probably the main method of capturing existing CO2 for sequestration will be geochemical.
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      > Emphasis on KNOWN. There's lot of research going on. Energy crisis and climate change are happening now, the solution needs to be deployed at massive scale to replace hundreds of gigawats of generation capacity across the continent. This takes decades. I is not possible to wait another 10 years to conplete research for a moracle solution, then another 10 years untill production scales up. A solution must be built with the tools that are avaliable now.

by ncmncm 4y ago

csdvrx 4y ago

> It is vastly more cost effective to build electric transmission lines instead of gas pipelines, and crack hydrogen at the point of use No it's not. You are building in your assumption that I talk about solar panels for electricity generation. I don't. I'm talking about direct aerochemistry, without separate solar panels, to avoid tackling up the conversion rate of solar to electricty on top of the conversion rate of the chemical reaction that would create the hydrocarbons. There is gas in North Africa. This gas can be directly burnt to generate heat. It can also be used to generate electricity. That's short term. In the long term, we'll be able to make similar compounds from energy (sunlight or heat) + CO2 + H2O. Inbetween, there's a window of opportunity for nuclear and solar, but both are extremely polluting due to the metals used: we should avoid getting locked in this bad situation. Also, I think the lack of nuclear accident in Western Europe so far has just been luck. With the dense population, it's a catastrophe waiting to happen. > Furthermore, the desert is a lousy place to put solar panels I don't think you understand, as I don't suggest at all the use of solar panels. Using solar panels to generate energy is nice, but it's at best carbon neutral. I'm talking about the future: being carbon negative: extracting CO2 from the atmosphere and generating a usable from of energy.

ncmncm 4y ago
If you are not talking about solar panels, you are not in the conversation. Photovoltaic solar is vastly cheaper than any known photochemical process. It is strongly carbon-negative. The metals involved do not make it a polluter. It is possible that a direct photochemical process cheaper than photovoltaics + electrolysis will be discovered, but none is known today, and photovoltaics cost is still in free fall, a moving target.
- csdvrx 4y ago
  > If you are not talking about solar panels, you are not in the conversation. (!!!) You are locked in the present, and existing sources of energy that are polluting yet labelled as "green". Think about the future instead! > Photovoltaic solar is vastly cheaper than any known photochemical process. Emphasis on KNOWN. There's lot of research going on. > It is strongly carbon-negative. Unless a process removes CO2 from the atmosphere, a process is not carbon negative. You may say that it reduces the interest in other methods that generate CO2, and therefore, by extension, it's like removing CO2, but it's not the same. > The metals involved do not make it a polluter. https://www.cfact.org/2019/09/15/the-solar-panel-toxic-waste-problem/ https://www.cfact.org/2019/09/15/the-solar-panel-toxic-waste... "Solar panels generate 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than nuclear power plants. They also contain lead, cadmium, and other toxic (even carcinogenic) chemicals that cannot be removed without breaking apart the entire panel. Worse, rainwater can wash many of these toxics out of the fragments of solar modules over time" I think you are blind to the various negatives of solar power. > It is possible that a direct photochemical process cheaper than photovoltaics + electrolysis will be discovered, Exactly my point. Thanks for at least agreeing in the end.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Efficient photochemical lysis is *possible", but not the way to bet. If it happens, it will enter the mix. There is no reason to think it would involve less use of metals than photovoltaics. Until hydrocarbon burning is a negligible part of energy production, a kWh of solar exactly displaces the equivalent amount of CO2 production. It is for now the most cost-effective way to keep CO2 from entering the atmosphere, much more so than any extractive process could match, and getting cheaper by the day. When we are producing much less CO2, we will need to start collecting and sequestering carbon. Turning it into fuel again, by whatever means, just cycles it back to the atmosphere when the fuel is burned. Probably the main method of capturing existing CO2 for sequestration will be geochemical.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    > Emphasis on KNOWN. There's lot of research going on. Energy crisis and climate change are happening now, the solution needs to be deployed at massive scale to replace hundreds of gigawats of generation capacity across the continent. This takes decades. I is not possible to wait another 10 years to conplete research for a moracle solution, then another 10 years untill production scales up. A solution must be built with the tools that are avaliable now.